What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had alternative remedies available. The petitioner was directed to pursue their stay application before the CIT(A).

The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) challenging an assessment order. A stay application was also pending before the CIT(A). Instead of pursuing these, the petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court.

What were the issues?

Whether a writ petition is maintainable when alternative remedies are available before the appellate authorities. The court also considered the pendency of an appeal and stay application before the CIT(A).

Sri Jihveshwara Credit… vs CIT | Karnataka High Court 2013

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.BILLAPPA

W.P.No.38337 /2013 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

Sri.Jihveshwara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. Represented by President S.S.Vishwanath, No.125, Swakula Sali Sangha Building, B.V.K. Iyengar Road Cross, Bangalore 560 053. …Petitioner

(By Sri.Ganesh.R.Ghale, Adv.,)

AND:

The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-II, No.59, 4th Floor, HMT Bhavan, Ganganagar, Bellar Road, Bangalore 560 032.

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1), 6th Floor, Unity Building, Annexe, Mission Road, Bangalore- 560 027. …Respondents

(By Sri.K.V.Aravid, Adv., for R1 and R2) ******

This Writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India, praying to direct in the nature of

2 mandamus or otherwise to the second respondent restraining him from taking any steps for recovery of the outstanding taxes as per Ann-A dated 23.11.2012

This Writ petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:-

O R D E R

Sri.K.V.Aravind, Advocate, Standing counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 has appeared. Therefore, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondents 1 and 2.

The petitioner has preferred an appeal before the first respondent challenging the assessment order for the year 2010-11. The appeal is pending. Stay application is also pending. Instead of pursuing the matter before the first respondent, the petitioner has approached this court. Therefore, the writ petition cannot be entertained.

Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected. The petitioner can move the first respondent to consider the stay application. The first respondent is directed to consider the

3 stay application within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and pass appropriate orders.

Sd/- JUDGE

SRI JIHVESHWARA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments